| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
zark
Minor Poster
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 49
|
 Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 3:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
yeah, yeah, yeah.
Its plain to see, even for 'someone with no thought of the past or future'. (heh, Ian.. your word censorship is odd. I was correct with my grammar, context and use of the english language. I believe you need to get a dictionary and re-evaluate which words you personally perceive as 'offensive' or 'abusive')
this forum is full of 'that word' because the name of the game is arrest any so called 'controversial' issues and began a systematic deconstruction of posters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
zark
Minor Poster
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
back to the video;
starts with a number of low lying buildings in front of WTC1.
then after the building disappears the camera pans back and.....
a couple of buildings have disappeared and the glass triangle topped building has been pushed left into the space vacated by the removed buildings.
then after a bit of camera panning the buildings return and the glass topped building is returned to original position.
Never mind WTC1 jumps left screen about 400ft
The blatant gap after WTC1 disappears, right screen
This video is fake.
Just because its made by apparently two amateurs doesn't give it automatic validation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps they stopped recording, moved and then started again, or perhaps the film has been edited.
If your claims are correct, zark, how would you explain such a blatantly rubbish fake? If you were going to fake a video wouldn't you make more effort to make it believable?
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| zark wrote: | yeah, yeah, yeah.
Its plain to see, even for 'someone with no thought of the past or future'. (heh, Ian.. your word censorship is odd. I was correct with my grammar, context and use of the english language. I believe you need to get a dictionary and re-evaluate which words you personally perceive as 'offensive' or 'abusive')
this forum is full of 'that word' because the name of the game is arrest any so called 'controversial' issues and began a systematic deconstruction of posters. |
The name of the game is to ensure that discussions here are polite and civil, something many 'researchers' have a real problem with (as well as the occasional critic of the 'researchers'). Calling someone a nonce is not polite. Accept it or be banned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zark
Minor Poster
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig W wrote: | Perhaps they stopped recording, moved and then started again, or perhaps the film has been edited.
If your claims are correct, zark, how would you explain such a blatantly rubbish fake? If you were going to fake a video wouldn't you make more effort to make it believable? |
nah, dude. The video has been manipulated, buildings have been shifted around.
The explanation;
TV Fakery is all about choose your reality.
I agree that fake videos could be made to such a standard that it would be impossible to know. This being with a personal computer, never mind military systems.
The rubbish fakes are purposefully rubbish. There is not one single video of the planes without inherit crapness.
Choose your reality
plus the added bonus for the psychotics is that once one realises that the images are fake, all information available is immediately suspect.
I imagine this is why TV Fakery is widely and throughly critised by the truth movement.
To continue with the 'choose your reality' explanation, i can and it will take some time.
My starting point is;
money is a commodity
from here a little knowledge of social theories of identity and reality are required but i promise it will be a coolio fantastic voyage.
that said;
the video manipulation is really really poor, as are all the footage of planes hitting the towers. They, the psychotic murders, are not stupid. Naval war planners are social architects of the highest order. From false flag operations to instigation of national uprisings it is clear they have turned their attention upon us, the peoples of the UK.
'Agency' and 'ideology' weigh heavy within this discourse and weak swimmers (for lack of a better phrase) better get their floats.
I am beginning to write about symptoms and systematic influences upon oneself. The resulting 'choose your reality' being a critical point for human reality.
When Thomas Barnett discussed the most devastating event for the US in 1999 he was briefly accused of being one of the perps of 9/11. Which is a moment in itself (p.s if you wish to gain a copy of CSPANS 'The Pentagons New Map' i have one and am quite willing to avail myself). The symptoms of the out-of-control system have been appearing for many decades but as one is witness to the death throes the actual cause has become apparent and all symptoms can be explained as can be the effects still to come.
9/11 wasnt just an attack and cover-up, it was a fracture between humans and the system. What that system is is incredibly important and hence i will always begin with the factual statement;
money is a commodity |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| zark wrote: | | There is not one single video of the planes without inherit crapness. |
I keep seeing this claim from no planers but it's completely untrue.
I asked the following question twice on another thread but got no answer - so maybe you can answer it.
this looks like a real plane to me....
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc2-strike-7.avi
if it doesn't resemble a real plane to you, please could you explain why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EmptyBee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 151
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| zark wrote: |
My starting point is;
money is a commodity
|
Sorry to be pedantic but money is not a commodity. Money is a medium of exchange: you exchange money for commodities. Money can take the form of commodities that are widely recognised as valuable, such as gold or silver, but nearly all money today is entirely artificial and doesn't exist as anything more substantial than data in a computer, and is essentially created out of thin air by banks in the form of debt.
If you want to understand global geopolitics then money isn't a bad starting place, but you'd also be wise to try and understand the significance of real physical commodities, such as oil, gold and heroin.
But then perhaps such things are not part of the 'reality' that you 'choose' to inhabit.
_________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc2-strike-7.avi |
Interesting how this clip doesn't show the obvious 'nose-out', |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | Quote: | | http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc2-strike-7.avi |
Interesting how this clip doesn't show the obvious 'nose-out', |
I am surprised at your unequivocal statement, tele.
How can you judge whether the "nose", or whatever it is, is sticking out from this head-on shot?
To my eyes there does seem to be something that follows through just before the fireball. But it's impossible to tell for sure.
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig W wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | | Quote: | | http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc2-strike-7.avi |
Interesting how this clip doesn't show the obvious 'nose-out', |
I am surprised at your unequivocal statement, tele.
How can you judge whether the "nose", or whatever it is, is sticking out from this head-on shot?
To my eyes there does seem to be something that follows through just before the fireball. But it's impossible to tell for sure. |
It wasn't my intent to furnish any degree of uncertainty, it is just that I personally find it very clear that when you look at the videos that include the 'nose' - we are talking Barbra Streisand - the video in question does not have this at all.
Check the comparison - there is very clearly no sign of the hooter. Look intently at the right hand image - then to the sequence on the left - nothing resembling a big rounded object there.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Witchfinder General
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 134
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It's a fake because there are no broken steel beams on the exit wound |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zark
Minor Poster
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EmptyBee wrote: | | zark wrote: |
My starting point is;
money is a commodity
|
Sorry to be pedantic but money is not a commodity. Money is a medium of exchange: you exchange money for commodities. |
and this thinking is exactly why oneself is in the mire.
Materialist philosophy is fraudulent.
EmptyBee -- Marxist theory is start point for all western philosophy including 'identity' and 'reality' concepts.
Capital does not exist.
Usury must be attended to. It creates ramifications that permeate internally and well as externally.
The Bank of England is a factory
The Bank is a corporation
The shareholders receive the factories produce
Corporations are 'individuals' through law
Interest is charged upon loans given to the government
The debt can never be repaid
Money is not an exchange mechanism, it is a commodity.
The beginning of the obfuscation
M-C-M
this is a fraudulent theory
M/C - M/C - M/C <------ this is correct |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zark
Minor Poster
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
in every single video clip of the planes there are many anomalies. In order to accept the videos as valid one is required to willfully ignore the purposefully embedded whatzits.
This is psychological warfare being conducted on the TV viewers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | Craig W wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | | Quote: | | http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc2-strike-7.avi |
Interesting how this clip doesn't show the obvious 'nose-out', |
I am surprised at your unequivocal statement, tele.
How can you judge whether the "nose", or whatever it is, is sticking out from this head-on shot?
To my eyes there does seem to be something that follows through just before the fireball. But it's impossible to tell for sure. |
It wasn't my intent to furnish any degree of uncertainty, it is just that I personally find it very clear that when you look at the videos that include the 'nose' - we are talking Barbra Streisand - the video in question does not have this at all.
Check the comparison - there is very clearly no sign of the hooter. Look intently at the right hand image - then to the sequence on the left - nothing resembling a big rounded object there.
|
While it is impossible to be sure, I think the Streisand moment you seek is occurring in the first, second and third of your small freeze-frames (top left). There is certainly something grey and round emerging in the right place before it is swallowed up by the fireball in frame four. While its length is impossible to determine from that perspective, the shadow it casts suggests it is of Streisand-like proportions.
Does that explain it?
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig W wrote: |
Does that explain it? |
You state that we have a 'head-on' view. Actually we can see quite a lot of the side of the building, meaning we are actually at something of an angle. This gives us a perspective that if the nose/whatever was emerging, we would clearly see it if it existed as we have more than a straight on viewpoint.
If you look at the right hand image, the object is very prominent and very large. It does not appear at any stage in the sequence of pictures and I admit to being surprised that anyone can suggest that they believe it does.
There is just smoke/dust in the sequence and definitely no 'nose'. Due to its apparent dimensions, if it existed, there would be no question. Look at the size of the object, look at the left hand sequence - can you honestly say that you can see it, even possibly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes. I see no discrepancy here.
You are right, it is not fully head-on. But my point was that the angle with the object coming mainly toward us makes it difficult to ascertain the length of the exiting object.
Judging from the shadow, I think the big side-on Streisand shot was taken around the same time as frames two and three of the little freeze-frames.
How do you interpret the shadow?
I'm as surprised as you are that I can see it that you can't! 
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EmptyBee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 151
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| zark wrote: | | EmptyBee wrote: | | zark wrote: |
My starting point is;
money is a commodity
|
Sorry to be pedantic but money is not a commodity. Money is a medium of exchange: you exchange money for commodities. |
and this thinking is exactly why oneself is in the mire.
|
O RLY?
| Quote: |
Materialist philosophy is fraudulent.
EmptyBee -- Marxist theory is start point for all western philosophy including 'identity' and 'reality' concepts.
|
Ever heard of Plato? If you're going to talk about the 'start point for all western philosophy' I think Marx is rather a latecomer to the party.
| Quote: |
Capital does not exist.
Usury must be attended to. It creates ramifications that permeate internally and well as externally.
|
This I can agree with.
| Quote: |
The Bank of England is a factory
The Bank is a corporation
The shareholders receive the factories produce
Corporations are 'individuals' through law
Interest is charged upon loans given to the government
The debt can never be repaid
Money is not an exchange mechanism, it is a commodity.
The beginning of the obfuscation
M-C-M
this is a fraudulent theory
M/C - M/C - M/C <------ this is correct |
The idea that money has value is only true by consensus. The truth is banks - or 'money factories' to borrow your phrase, do not produce anything tangible. People treat money as equal to the value of a commodity, in fact money is generally prized over commodities because it can be converted into tangible commodities so freely. Does this make money an 'uber-commodity'? Not really; try going to Zimbabwe, where they all have vastly more Zim dollars than they had in the past, but are starving in the street nonetheless. The printing presses churn out more Zim dollars every day, but the economy is a basket case.
What matters at the fundamental level is access to wealth. The banks of a powerful nation can appear virtually omnipotent, but take away the armies, the industries and the natural resources and the money-makers become irrelevant.
Our current economic paradigm places the money-makers at the top of the pyramid, but their power resides in nothing more substantial than an idea, an illusion; and our collective participation in it.
_________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kc
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 359
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Go Bee go! Go Bee Go!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig W wrote: | Yes. I see no discrepancy here.
You are right, it is not fully head-on. But my point was that the angle with the object coming mainly toward us makes it difficult to ascertain the length of the exiting object.
Judging from the shadow, I think the big side-on Streisand shot was taken around the same time as frames two and three of the little freeze-frames.
How do you interpret the shadow?
I'm as surprised as you are that I can see it that you can't! |
Okay, if you are having trouble with what you see, then look at the image below.
The aircraft is 15' 6" wide. The 'object' is approx (but very close) 24' wide based up the width of the building (207'), divided by 8.5. So it cannot be the nose of the aircraft, the engines as has been suggested are considerably smaller.
It cannot exist, so there is no question it is faked regardless of what we think the stills show us.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We seem to have moved on to a slightly different question/subject: the validity of the side-on Streisand shot.
Initially, we were talking about whether the footage posted by gruts showed the Streisand. While acknowleging that it was impossible to be sure, I said I thought it did and I pointed out why, with particular reference to the shadow which to me matches the other image.
What is your response to the shadow evidence?
As for the side-on Streisand shot, I see where you are coming from: if it is real, what could it be, given that it is so big?
But I wouldn't say that proved it was a fake. We don't know if what appears to be solid really is solid. It might be part of the explosion, or some kind of gas/plasma thingamy (I'm no scientist!) concealing an engine,nose-cone or other remnant. Perhaps it isn't a part of the plane at all but something pushed out from inside the tower by the plane...
Who knows? But I personally don't see anything anomalous here.
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EmptyBee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 151
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the "nose" is just part of the explosion, and just gas/debris.
_________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Could we narrow down exactly what we mean by 'gas' and its origins?
The concept of 'gas' forming such a shape, exhibiting the characteristics of being lit from above and the underside being in shadow. You will need to be specific in order to move forward.
Bear in mind that 'bubbles' do not form in the shape of cylinders but are circular due to equal pressure.
As for moving to a 'different' question as Craig has pointed out, the original subject entered the usual stalemate scenario of differing views and there was no remaining mileage to be had there. I see the shadow as being cast solely from the expanding debris/dust/smoke field - there is simply no large object in evidence, gas or otherwise.
One final point as to the 'object being resident in the building and being pushed out. Consider the dimensions of the object - 24' - no object that size could fit between the clearance between floors.
Last edited by telecasterisation on Fri May 18, 2007 4:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the shadow, you can track how its shape changes through those four frames.
1 - very little shadow
2 - long thin shadow (suggesting a thin object exiting into the sunshine)
3 - long thin shadow
4 - long thick shadow (after fireball has "ballooned")
This shadow fits well with the side-on image of the Streisand (and the bigger footage from which that was taken) and its shadow imo.
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig W wrote: | On the shadow, you can track how its shape changes through those four frames.
1 - very little shadow
2 - long thin shadow (suggesting a thin object exiting into the sunshine)
3 - long thin shadow
4 - long thick shadow (after fireball has "ballooned")
This shadow fits well with the side-on image of the Streisand (and the bigger footage from which that was taken) and its shadow imo. |
You are very focused upon the shadow when you should be looking for something with straight edges extending 50' beyond it (it is twice as long as it is wide). There is nowhere in the sequence where this is evident.
I am a bit lost by your claim about the shadow matching a long thin object, when it clearly is the width of the smoke/dust field. The angle of the sun in relation to the side of the building casting a long shadow.
You see the object on the right being in the one on the left? That is genuinely astonishing.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sorry, tele, but I don't understand either of your points.
I am happy to agree to disagree on this.
My eyes and brain tell me that there's nothing anomalous here. I have tried to explain why. I'm not sure you have understood my explanations and I don't understand yours. Stale mate?
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig W wrote: | I'm sorry, tele, but I don't understand either of your points.
I am happy to agree to disagree on this.
My eyes and brain tell me that there's nothing anomalous here. I have tried to explain why. I'm not sure you have understood my explanations and I don't understand yours. Stale mate? |
The easiest thing to do is watch the video again, using play/pause/play/pause.
The shadow is 100% being cast by smoke/dust - you can see this very very clearly. If you move incrementally through the section where the impact starts to come out the other side of the building, you will see that there is nothing remotely resembling the 'nose'.
The shadow changes as the debris cloud alters shape - but because the light source (the sun) is fairly low in the sky, the shadow appears long and thin.
Actually, my previous post ends in a question concerning an image. I think it is self-explanatory - the object in the right hand picture is not in the left.
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc2-strike-7.avi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nothing to add, bud.
I don't say I see it FOR SURE. But nor do I see any reason to think it is DEFINITELY NOT THERE. The angle makes it impossible to judge for me. But the shadow evidence suggests it is there.
Final word. 
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig W wrote: | Nothing to add, bud.
I don't say I see it FOR SURE. But nor do I see any reason to think it is DEFINITELY NOT THERE. The angle makes it impossible to judge for me. But the shadow evidence suggests it is there.
Final word. |
That's cool, but if you watched the video in the way I suggested, you would clearly see that the shadow is formed solely by the dust cloud and the angle of the sun and not any huge 24 x 50 ft objects with straight edges.
That said, the object cannot exist either from the aircraft nor the building. Unquestionably fake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zark
Minor Poster
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EmptyBee wrote: |
| Quote: | Marxist theory is start point for all western philosophy including 'identity' and 'reality' concepts.
|
Ever heard of Plato? If you're going to talk about the 'start point for all western philosophy' I think Marx is rather a latecomer to the party.
|
Marx emerged through Hegel and this materialist philosophy.
You are failing to appreciate how 'money' affects ones identity and incorporating the effects of 'agency'.
Plato wasn't around when the Bank of England was created and the system began. One is thinking through the system and attempting to interpret Plato from within a system that has subsumed discourse.
| Quote: |
What matters at the fundamental level is access to wealth. |
what wealth? financial?
if this is what you mean... please explain how capital exists within a debt based system.
Everything is negative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let's be honest I have no explanation for what this is coming out of the far side of the building, but there are some points to make:
From the grainy video:
1) We don't know it is round
2) We certainly don't know it is the nose of the plane
3) We don't know it's width and we don't know it is any wider than one of the window sections, meaning we don't know that it is a problem at all that the steel columns were not broken
4) Following on from this, we don't know it "breaks the laws of physics" this could be a section of plane which was sliced from the plane as it came through a window section on one side, and then exited through a window section on the other side.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
